Court No. II, Case No. 4.
In re Point a) Crimes which were committed in concentration camps.
The Prosecution has itself asserted that until March 1942, the Concentration Camps were under the Inspector of Concentration Camps and that after this period they were under Amtsgruppe D of the WVHA. Defendant Volk never belonged to either one of these two offices. Furthermore, he never assisted these two offices through his own activity. Defendant Volk was also unaware of the fact that any crimes were committed in the concentration camps.
Similarly, Defendant Volk took no part whatsoever in the erection of concentration camps, or in particular the acquisition of land for concentration camps. This applies also to the acquisition of land in Stutthof. In this connection, the Prosecution has overlooked the fact that the concentration camp in Stutthof was erected in 1940-at a time, that is, when the concentration camps were still under the Inspector of Concentration Camps and Staff W was not yet in existence at all.
The negotiations which, according to Documents NO-2133 and NO-2159, Volume XIV, pages 35 and 37 of the German Document Book, were carried on by Defendant Volk, and were not connected with the acquisition of land for the Stutthof Concentration Camp, as the Prosecution erroneously assumes, but with land for the erection of a settlement. Defendant Volk took part in these negotiations as manager of the Gemeinnuetzige Wohnungs-und Heimstaetten, GmBH. From this fact it follows beyond all doubt, that the negotiations carried on by Defendant Volk could not have been connected with the land for the Concentration Camp. For only the German Reich could have acquired the land for the concentration camps; not, however, the Gemeinnuetzige Wohnungs-und Heimstaetten GmBH.
As I shall demonstrate, Document NO-2133 submitted by the Prosecution under Documentary Evidence 387, and Document 2159, under Documentary Evidence 388 (Volume III, Pages 35 and 37 of the German Document Book) do not reproduce the facts of the case accurately. This Court No. II, Case No. 4.is at once shown by a comparison with Document NO-2147, Volume II, Page 58 to 3 of the German Document Book.
According to Document NO-2327 (Volume III, Page 122 of the German Document Book) Pister, former commandant of the Buchenwald Camp, has testified that Defendant Volk took part in conferences of the Camp commanders at Defendant Pohl's. In this connection, I shall prove that Defendant Volk was merely present once, for a short while, at a meeting of the camp commanders; that he did not, however, participate in the actual discussions of the commanders. As long as Defendant Volk was present no matters pertaining to the Concentration Camps were discussed. The subject of the conference was always kept strictly secret. From the fact that the Defendant Volk was present at the conference for a short while, it cannot be inferred that Defendant Volk learned the subject of the conference.
Defendant Volk never visited a concentration camp. The general prohibition concerning the entering of concentration camps applied to him as well. As regards Document NO-1030 (Volume III, Page 47 of the German Document Book), I shall prove that Defendant Volk did not visit the Protective Custody Camp at Flossenbuerg, but merely a plant of the DEST in the locality of Flossenbuerg. This plant, which was quite separate from the protective custody camp, produced airplane parts for the Messerschmidt Works. The visit at this plant lasted only a short time. From the inspection of this plant it was in no way possible to gain the impression that any kind of war crimes or crimes against humanity were being committed in the Flossenbuerg Protective Custody Camp. During this visit, Defendant Volk did not enter either the Protective Custody Camp nor the stone quarry.
In re Points b) and c) Medical experiments - Euthanasia Action 14F13 Defendant Volk in no way took part in the medical experiments in concentration camps or in the so-called Euthanasia Program 14F13.
The Prosecution has presented nothing on this score. At the reading of the Indictment, Defendant Volk was not even mentioned in Court No. II, Case No. 4.these counts of the Indictment.
As regards this count, I shall, therefore, confine myself to furnishing proof that Defendant Volk knew nothing of the medical experiments and of the Euthanasia Program 14F13. Essential in this connection appears to me the fact that the secrecy of these matters was highly safeguarded. Therefore, only those persons actually engaged in them were informed of medical experiments and the so-called Euthanasia Program 14F13.
In re Point d) Systematic and ruthless annihilation of the Jewish People Regarding the count of the Indictment "Destruction of the Jews", Defendant Volk is first of all accused of partaking in the action Reinhardt and of having known about these measures.
The Prosecution has stated that the action Reinhardt consisted of the following measures:
a) deportation of the Jews,
b) exploitation of the personal property of the Jews,
c) exploitation of Jewish manpower and industrial equipment.
Defendant Volk partook in none of these measures. Nor - as I shall prove it - did he know of them in spite of his position as personal advisor to Defendant Pohl, for these measures too were kept strictly secret.
Defendant Volk has never worked at the Eastern Industries Ltd. (Ost-Industrie GmbH) generally called Osti, nor has he supported this Company in any respect.
In this connection, the prosecution of the legal position of the Osti will be of special consequence. As to this I shall prove that the Osti was not subordinated to Staff W. It was purely a Reich company and as such did not belong to the DWB (German Economic Enterprises, Ltd.) concern. It was not even connected with the DWB by any organ-contract. There has never been a member of the Staff W on its board of supervisors; therefore, Staff W could not have had any influence Court No. II, Case No. 4.on the Osti.
From Document No. NO-1255 (German Document Book Volume XIX, Page 9), submitted by the Prosecution, can be seen that Defendant Volk has not assisted in drafting the articles of incorporation. The aims of the Osti, as stated by the Prosecution, were unknown to Defendant Volk. According to Document NO-1270 (Volume III, Page 73 of the German Document Book), submitted by the Prosecution, Defendant Volk was present at a conference on 13 February 1943, at which matters of the Osti were down for discussion. It will be proved that Defendant Volk was not present right from the beginning of the meeting. Besides, on this occasion there was no detailed discussion of the activities of the Osti. The entire meeting lasted only 10 minutes. Horn merely put some questions which were of no interest to Defendant Volk and which gave him no indication of the tasks of the Osti. After the first few questions Pohl broke off the discussion and advised Horn to get his information from the people on the spot.
When using this document it must further be considered that this meeting happened shortly before the foundation of the Osti, which took place in March 1943, and that at that time the future designs of the Osti were not yet discernible for Defendant Volk.
The Prosecution has further stated that in January 1944 Defendant Volk participated in an attempt to make the Ghetto at Lodz into a concentration camp in order to obtain in this way the Ghetto together with its industrial plants and 80,000 Jews for the Osti.
I shall disprove this assertion of the Prosecution. In this connection I shall prove particularly that Himmler, by decree of 11 June 1943, Document No. NO-519 (German Document Book Vol. XIX, Page 49) has ordered the transformation of the Ghetto at Lodz into a concentration camp. In this decision of Himmler's, Defendant Volk took no part whatsoever. In consequence of the order there ensued negotiations with the representative of Gauleiter Greiser, then in office. Defendant Volk participated in these negotiations. He thereupon was instrumental in the cancellation of Himmler's order insofar as he Court No. II, Case No. 4.dissuaded Defendant Pohl to take over the Lodz Ghetto.
This is particularly obvious from Greiser's letter to Pohl of 14 February 1944, Document No. NO-519 (German Document Book Vol. XIX, Page 44). This letter explicitly states that Defendant Volk opposed the transformation of the Ghetto into a concentration camp.
Of the measures taken against Jews, mentioned in the letter of 14 February 1944, Defendant Volk has learned only in the course of this trial. From the original of this document, it is evident that Defendant Volk never saw this letter and was not informed of its contents.
In re Point e) Activities in the SS-Industry Regarding the point "Slave Labor", the Prosecution has stated that Defendant Volk, like some other defendants, had achieved mastership in this respect.
However, the evidence collected by the Prosecution has not produced the slightest indication of this. The Prosecution declared only in general, without producing the evidence, that Amtsgruppe W, under the direction of the President Pohl, Georg Loerner, Baier, Volk and Mummenthey, employed prisoners on a large scale and under most barbarious conditions in the factories of their department. However, individual facts and circumstances have not been produced to show that Volk took part in such measures. Therefore, it must be concluded that Volk is made responsible for those measures solely because he belonged to Staff W. It shows that the position of Staff W is not correctly judged by the Prosecution. Therefore, I shall prove that Staff W could not give orders of any kind to the companies incorporated in the DEW. Staff W had no directive powers, but only advisory functions. In this respect the memorandum, Document No. NO1016 (Vol. II, Page 123 of the German Document Book) represents the facts incorrectly. When judging the attitude of Defendant Volk, it will further be of importance to remember that he did not compose this memorandum.
Besides, Defendant Volk has never been the chief of Staff W, Court No. II, Case No. 4.but only the manager of the legal department.
In this capacity he had nothing to do with the companies employing inmates of concentration camps; they had their own legal departments.
I shall also prove that the activities of Defendant Volk in Amtsgruppe W were not directed towards
a) exploiting and destroying so-called inferior people, and
b) plundering valuable industries in the occupied territories by means of expropriation.
Neither did he know that such aims were pursued through the SS-industries. In no way did Staff W cooperate with Amtsgruppe D in order to obtain landed property for concentration camps. As far as in this connection Defendant Volk is charged with negotiating the acquisition of real estate in Stutthof, I have already made my comments.
The activities of Defendant Volk as manager of the Cooperative House and Homebuilding Limited (Gemeinnuetzige Wohnungs-und Heimstaetten G.m.b.H.) were not directed towards plundering Jewish property. All acquisitions of real estate had already been effected when he became the manager of this enterprise. During his stay in this company, no real estate belonging to Jews was acquired.
In Re Count 4 of Indictment (Membership in Criminal Organizations).
From November 1933 until January 1940, the defendant Volk was a member of the Reiter-SS. By verdict of the IMT, the Reiter-SS has been expressly excepted from that category of SS-members who were declared criminal.
In January 1940, the defendant Volk was recruited into the Waffen-SS and assigned to Amt III A/4. Therefore, his membership in the Waffen- SS was not voluntary but it can be attributable to a lawful decree. Thus, as far as his membership in the Waffen-SS after January 1940 is concerned, the defendant Volk belongs to that category of persons who were declared not criminal by verdict of the IMT.
The employment contact with the German Economic Enterprise, Ltd., (DWB), Document No. NO-2163 (German Document Book Vol. XIV, Pages 76, 79, ) which the Prosecution has submitted, is entirely without significance for the judging of the question whether the defendant Volk belonged to an organization that has been declared criminal; an employment contract with the DWB proves neither a membership in the SS not an official rank or office within the SS. The DWB was a private enterprise under civil law. The signing of an employment contract must therefore be considered in the same way legally as the signing of an employment contract with any other private company.
Apart from this the defendant Volk would anyway not come into the category of persons declared criminal by verdict of the IMT, because, as I shall prove, he a) did not know that the SS was being used for committing criminal acts; and b) did not himself take part in any crime.
The defendant Bobermin is charged with crimes against all four counts of the indictment.
To Count 1 of the Indictment: The Conspiracy Charge:
On the charge of conspiracy I shall prove that the defendant Bobermin did not enter into any common plan or agreement in conjunction with the other defendants or any other persons for the commission of War Crimes or Crimes against Humanity.
Office W2, directed by the defendant Dr. Bobermin, had no joint tasks with the other offices of the WVHA.
Office W2 had a special problem, entirely separate from the other offices, which I shall present in detail in my presentation of evidence. Herewith I shall prove especially that it was not, as the prosecution has stated, the aim and object of the Office W2 directed by the defendant Bobermin to finance the SS or to support the other offices of the WVHA in any other manner.
Furthermore, it is not true that, as the prosecution has stated, the activities of Office W2 consisted of maintaining concentration camps and of utilizing manpower.
The same is also true of the activities of the defendant Bobermin in Office III A/4 before the foundation of the WVHA.
As, then, there is no question of the defendant's participation in a conspiracy, he cannot be held responsible for the actions of the other defendants. He can only be made responsible for War Crimes or Crimes against Humanity, if it can be proven that he himself committed such crimes.
To Counts 2 and 3 of the Indictment (War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity):
In this connection, I shall bring proof that the defendant Bobermin himself committed no War Crimes or Crimes against Humanity not did he participate in them. I shall use the construction of the indictment as a basis for my presentation of evidence.
To Count (a) Crimes committed in the Concentration Camps:
The prosecution has stated that up to March 1942 the Inspector of the Concentration Camps, and after that time Amtsgurppe D, was in charge of the direct administration of the Concentration Camps. From this it is evident that these offices are responsible for this part of the SS activities.
According to its own statement the prosecution has already freed the defendant Bobermin from responsibility for the crimes which were alleged to have been committed in the Concentration Camps. To this I shall bring evidence which will show that Office W2, which was directed by the defendant Bobermin, had nothing to do with the administration of the Concentration Camps, in particular that Office W2 did not have the task of supporting Amtsgruppe D in any way in the administration of the Concentration Camps and that the defendant Bobermin did not and could not have had any knowledge of the crimes committed in the Concentration Camps.
The defendant Bobermin has never inspected a Concentration Camp. My evidence will, amongst other things, refute in the case of Office W2 the prosecution's statement that every office of Amtsgruppe W had a deputy in the concentration camps, and that there was a close connection between the industries controlled by Office W2 and the administration of the concentration camps.
In (b) and (c): Medical experiments and euthanasia action 14f13.
The prosecution has produced no facts to show that the defendant Bobermin was connected in any way with the medical experiments in concentration camps and with the so-called euthanasia program. I shall, therefore, confine my evidence to proving that the defendant Bobermin had no knowledge of these measures.
The affairs in question were kept strictly secret in accordance with the existing regulations and those persons not directly concerned knew nothing about them.
In (d): Systematical and merciless extermination of the Jews.
The defendant Bobermin did not participate in the extermination of the Jews.
He had no knowledge of these measures.
The measures carried out by the chief of the security police under the title "Final solution of the Jewish problem" were kept extremely secret. The defendant Bobermin did not belong to that circle of people who knew of these measures. Neither did the defendant Bobermin know anything about the activities of the task forces in the East. The extermination camps of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek, Blezec and Sobibor, mentioned in the opening statement, were never visited by the defendant.
Himmler's speech of 4 October 1943 in Posen, mentioned by the prosecution, was delivered to SS-Gruppenfuehrers.
The defendant Bobermin was of a considerably lower rank and was not present at this meeting.
The defendant Bobermin also took no part in the administration of Jewish property. The prosecution document No. 1050 (German document book, volume XVI page 63) merely shows that a loan of 1,200,000 zloty was made available by an office of the SS and police chief in the Lublin district to the Klinker-Cememt G.M.B.H., which was directed by the defendant Bobermin, and that the defendant Bobermin was requested to repay this amount to the WVHA. The defendant Bobermin did not know the origin of the money when he borrowed this credit. The administrative officer Wippern, with the SS and Police Chief in Lublin, did not even tell the defendant Bobermin that this money came from the Reinhardt fund.
The defendant Bobermin heard of the Reinhardt fund for the first time in document No. 1015 without knowing where the money came from. The action Reinhardt was top secret, and according to the existing regulations was known only to those people immediately connected with its execution.
In (e): Slave Labor.
The charge of having employed a large number of inmates under inhuman conditions on armaments production in the factories belonging to his office, was not brought against the defendant Bobermin. The prosecution merely stated that in one of the over 300 plants directed by the defendant Bobermin, concentration camp inmates were employed; this was in the Golleschauer Portland Cement Factory A.G. But the prosecution did not state that in Golleschau the inmates were treated in any way which could be described as criminal. The defendant Bobermin also has no knowledge of such occurrences. In addition, I shall prove that the accommodation, food and treatment of the inmates in Golleschau was irreproachable.
The defendant Bobermin visited the camp at Golleschau on 2 or 3 occasions.
He made no observations on these visits -- and under these circumstances could make no kind of observations -- which would have concluded that crimes were committed on the inmates.
The fact that inmates were used in only one of the numerous factories directed by the defendant Bobermin is sufficient to prove the defendant Bobermin's objection to the employment of inmates.
The letter dated 2 April 1944 submitted by the prosecution as document No. 2006 does not portray the opinion of the defendant Bobermin but that of the SS economist in Cracow at that time. The defendant Bobermin was not interested in the taking over of the Bonarka brickyard in the former General Government. This can be seen from his reserved judgement of the profit prospects. And it was due to this that the Benarka brickyard was actually not taken over by office W2.
Free laborers were employed in the other Brick Works controlled by Office W2. Their employment cannot be considered as slave-labor.
To Point (f): SS-Industry.
In his opening statement, the Prosecutor, in a special paragraph dealt with the SS-Industries. In the accusation of typical lack of conscience and striving towards personal enrichment, made against the SS-Industries, I cannot see a crime against the Rules of War or a Crime against Humanity. The SS-Industries are further charged with: a) Slave-labor, that is, the exploitation and destruction of so-called inferior persons: and b) Plundering, by expropriation of valuable industries in the occupied territories.
I have already expressed my opinion of the charge of slave-labor. As far as the charge of plundering, through expropriation of valuable industries in the occupied territories is concerned, I will produce evidence that the Brick Works of the East German Building Materials Works Ostdeutsche Baustoffwerke) had already been requisitioned before the defendant Bobermin was informed of the economic tasks before the WVHA. I will also produce evidence that Office W2, under the defendant Bobermin, did not expropriate any Plants. The ownership of the plants administered by Office W2 remained unchanged.
Office W2 did not requisition these Plants, they had already been requisitioned by the Main Trustees Office East. These Plants were not plundered; on the contrary, considerable pains were taken to out them into operation and to improve them.
To point 4 of the Indictment (Membership of Criminal Organizations):
The defendant Bobermin was a member of the SS-Cavalry until January 1940. According to the verdict of IMT, the SS-Cavalry has been expressly exempted from those circles of persons declared criminal. As I have already stated in the case of the defendant Aub Volk.
Also, according to the verdict of IMT, these members who did not join voluntarily, but whose membership was based on a legal decree were exempted from the circle of persons declared criminal. The defendant Bobermin did not join the Waffen-SS in January 1940 voluntarily, but because of a Draft order calling him up into the Waffen-SS. His men bership in the Waffen-SS is therefore based on a legal decree.
The employment contracts with the East German Building Materials Works and the Brick-Cement A.G., Document No. 2126, German document bock Volume XVI, page 94, exhibited by the Prosecution carry no weight in deciding the question whether the defendant Bobermin was a member of an Organization declared criminal. Through these employment contracts with the East German Building Works or Brick-Cement A.G., neither membership in the SS nor a service rank nor a service position in the SS was indicated. Both the undertakings concerned must be judged legally in the same way as the conclusion of an Employment Contract with any other private enterprise.
Further, according to the verdict of IMT, these members do not belong to the group of persons declared criminal, who (a) had no knowledge that the Organization was engaged in criminal activities (b) who themselves did not participate in these crimes.
These stipulations also are given in the case of the defendant Bobermin, so that for these reasons as well, membership to the group of persons declared criminal is eliminated.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there just one more statement ready to be delivered? Any other? Just one. We'll hear you now.
DR. MAYER (Counsel for defendant Kiefer): I have only one copy of my opening speech for the interpreter.
May it please the Tribunal: Your Honor! The prosecution when carrying through its case has submitted a number of documents which mention Amtsgruppe C and the chief of this Amtsgruppe, Dr. ing. Kammler in connection with various building construction projects and measures. In its opening statement (page 77 of the German translation last paragraph) it furthermore expressed in this connection that the defendants Eirenschmalz and Kiefer as members of Amtsgruppe C of the WVHA played a leading part in this building program and are responsible for the maltreatment, torture and murder of innumerable hundreds of concentration camp inmates.
It is up to the Court to decide whether this contention of the Prosecution finds its justification in the evidence concerning the defendant Kiefer submitted by the Prosecution. I do not believe that the conclusion reached by the Prosecution is well-founded.
The documents submitted do not give a clear and distinct picture of the conditions as they really were; they are taken out of their context and their contents therefore can easily lead to false conclusions as to the actual facts concerning the structure and the tasks of Amtsgruppe C of the WVHA. This applies to the whole sphere of work with the carrying out of which Dr. Kammler has been entrusted and which in the course of time as the war progressed was continuously extended. The original task of Dr. Kammler, namely the direction of Amtsgruppe C, for this reason receded more and more into the background.
The defense will therefore try to show that two separate and distinct spheres of work were united in the person of Kammler, one of these was carried out by Amtsgruppe C while the other was carried out by Kammler with the help of other offices (Dienststellen) e.g. a special staff especially formed for this task.
The size and nature of the first mentioned sphere of work is shown in the distribution chart of Amtsgruppe C for the year 1943 (Document No. 1288 Exhibit No. 44 in Document Book II of the Prosecution) and the organization plan of the WVHA of 3 March 1942 (Document No. 111 Exhibit No. 38 is Document Book II of the Prosecution) which up to 1945 was kept up to date by corresponding corrections.
Kammler's second sphere of work consisted in the carrying out of various armament tasks. The carrying out of these was thus completely outside the scope of the WVHA and the Amtsgruppe C and comprised in broad lines the so-called "Jaeger" program, the shifting of industry underground, and the so-called V weapon program which for example included the tasks in the camps Dora and Laura. All these armament construction measures were secret so that only the persons immediately concerned were acquainted with them. The above-mentioned special staff which was at Kammler's disposal for this purpose, consisted of members of the Waffen-SS, the Luftwaffe, the Navy, and the Army who were released from their units or offices and were transferred to this special staff. There was no connection between this special staff and Amtsgruppe C. In this connection I refer to Document No. 2144 Exhibit No. 368 in Document Book XIII of the Prosecution which shows that Dr. Kammler when he was entrusted with the carrying through of all preparations for the use of V2, was in possession of full authority and was only subordinated to the Reich Fuehrer-SS Himmler, the Commander of the Reserve Army and the Chief of the Armament Command. Hereby is only of importance that this order of Himmler is not directed to Dr. Kammler in his capacity as chief of Amtsgruppe C and that the chief of the WVHA Oswald Pohl had not even been informed that the order was "top secret". This special staff of Kammler it has been issued. Besides is furthermore mentioned in the evidence of the Prosecution namely in Document No. 1580 Exhibit No. 303 in Document Book XI. However in the above-mentioned distribution charts of Amtsgruppe C of the WVHA it was never mentioned.
It can be expected that the Prosecution in its final statement will point out that all these documents as far as they deal with the construction program and production of armaments usually describe the chief of these measures, Dr. Kammler, as chief of Amtsgruppe C. This is easily explained, for Kammler was chief of Amtsgruppe C and whenever he appeared in connection with the carrying out of these special measures, for those who were not familiar with internal conditions, he appeared to be engaged in tasks coming within the sphere of Amtsgruppe C of the WVHA.
Often Kammler is only called chief of Amtsgruppe C in this connection for identification purposes.
As the entire armament tasks do not come at all into the sphere of Amtsgruppe C of the WVHA and were not carried out by it, under no circumstances can this Amtsgruppe and its departments be charged with the results occasioned by these measures regarding the use of concentration camp inmates and their treatment.
Within its proper sphere of work the Prosecution charges Amtsgruppe C with the construction of concentration camps, their enlargement and extension and the erection of gas chambers and crematoria. As far as this concerns the defendant Kiefer it must be stated that in no manner whatsoever did he participate in any of these projects. His tasks in Amt C II which he directed, lay in quite a different sphere. I should not like to omit to mention that in the document submitted so far no evidence is shown of Kiefer's collaboration in such construction measures. As far as the documents in question bear dictation marks, i.e. as far as they show from which office inside the Amtsgruppe C they originate, the dictation mark of Amt C II is nowhere to be found. Indeed, this is not possible as any document which deal with constructions in concentration camps or contain requirements of inmates for any purpose, have never been signed by Kiefer.
The defendant Max Kiefer was working in the Reich Luftfahrt Ministry during the years 1936-41. The scope of his activities was the department (Sachgebiet) "House and Settlement Buildings". As a result of his previous activities he was possessed of special expert knowledge and experience which he could utilize in the Reich Luftfarht Ministry.
At about the same time Dr. ing. Kammler was head of the department "Building above ground" (Hochbau) in the Luftfahrt Ministry and in this capacity the superior of the defendant Kiefer.
Kammler apparently noticed the expert work carried out by the defendant. He therefore made use of the fact that Kiefer in August 1941 was released from the Luftfahrt Ministry for the Army in order to have him transferred by the High Command of the Army to the Waffen-SS. This transfer actually took place on 1 September 1941. The SS Operational Main Office to which Kiefer had to report referred him to the Office "Budget and Buildings" (Haushalt und Bauten). Kammler had left the Luftfahrt Ministry about May or June 1940 and became director of the Office of building in the then "Budget and Buildings" office. Therefore Kiefer had to report to Kammler on account of his draft order (Gestellungsbefehl) in September 1941.
At that time Dr. Kallmer told him that he himself had induced Kiefer's transfer to the Waffen-SS.
At this discussion between Kammler and Kiefer the following was established:
1) That Kiefer's activities should only last for the period of his compulsory military service which he has herewith to serve with the Amt Beuten (Building Office) and
2) that his working field should comprise to an essential part the execution of the same tasks which he had successfully carried out at the Reich Luftfahrt Ministry but which will now be for the Waffen-SS and that his working field would remain limited insofar and
3) that his salary should be equal in amount to the salary he got at the Reich Luftfahrt Ministry.
According to this agreement the defendant Kiefer was charged with
1) the preparation of the building projects of housing in post war times,
2) the building of hospitals for the Waffen-SS,
3) schools and National Political Institutes and
4) agricultural buildings according to plans.
On no account the drawing up of building plans for individual buildings was to be understood by this, but mainly the establishment of standard figures and standard drawings in general. These standard figures and standard drawings had to be submitted to the Chief of the Amtsgruppe were they remained until they were needed by the lower or middle channels of authority. The Amt C II was not informed as to whether and when such a case of need occurred, because its participation was no longer required, as for the construction of a building, a special building plan based on the standard figures and standard drawings had to be drafted by the lower and middle channels of authority in their own competency. Kiefer had no connection with other Amtsgruppen or with other offices of Amtsgruppe C. His plans were never basic plans in themselves, he therefore never carried out a building project himself, and thus was not forced to get in touch with other offices within or outside Amtsgruppe C concerning requests for building materials or financial means.
In the course of the submission of evidence it will be of significance to go more into details of the individual working spheres of Amt C II. From this its nature and character becomes evident and any connection with the building projects brought to the charge of Amtsgruppe C is out of the question. Furthermore it will have to be proved that some tasks of Amt C II were never carried out and were actually only established on paper according to the organization plan. Within the compass of his working sphere it was impossible for the defendant Kiefer in his capacity of Chief of Amt C II to gain any information of incidents in the concentration camps, of labor demand concerning inmates and of the manner in which the inmates were treated, let alone actively to take part in any way. It may not be overlooked hereby that the Main Economic and Administrative Office was a very extensive office, widely spread as regards location of rooms and not al all housed in one single block of buildings, thus making it difficult to acquire information of this kind from a merely technical point of view, especially as such matters were completely outside of the working sphere of the defendant Kiefer.
The Amtsgruppe C was never directed by the defendant Kiefer in his capacity as deputy for Kammler, as the Prosecution maintains in its opening statement. However, in Document Book II the Prosecution presents a Document No. 1244 us Exhibit No. 45 by which Kammler on 6 September 1943, orders that the defendant Kiefer should act as his deputy on principle until further notice. But it must be pointed out that the same document in paragraph 2 makes it clear at once that Kiefer, owing to an already existing illness, could not actually carry out this duty as deputy and that therefore a certain SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Brahler will be charged to act as Kammler's deputy. The defense will attempt to prove that Max Kiefer never dealt with official affairs of Kammler's as his deputy and that this order of Kammler's actually did not come into effect.
In spite of his repeated absence from Berlin Dr. Kammler never relaxed his control on his office. By means of an organized courier-service all the mail and all other matters coming in as well as the mail which he had to sign for Amt C were delivered to him whether he was on official travels or on leave. Therefore the defendant Kiefer, after his resumption of work at the end of September or in early October 1943, gave his documents to be signed to the courier exactly as before, without signing official documents as deputy of Kammler. There was no change at all of the whole customary course of affairs. As results from the organization plan of the Main Economic and Administrative Office (WVHA) dated 3 March 1942 (Document Book No. II, Document No. III, Exhibit No. 38) a Professor Dr. Schleif was taken into Amtsgruppe C as permanent deputy for Dr. Kammler.
In 1935 the defendant Kiefer became a member of the Allegmeine SS. Originally this was done in the intention to create for himself a basis for his vocational activity as an independent architect, which intention, however, was made ineffective by his employment in the Reich Luftfahrt Ministry in 1936, as set forth earlier. Apart from the membership itself he never had any contact with the Allgemeine SS in the following time, as this was impossible for him for sheer lack of time in the orbit of his work. Since 1941 Kiefer has been a member of the Waffen-SS too, which membership was effected without his being asked through a transfer to the Waffen-SS by the Supreme Command of the Army. According to the sentences passed by the International Military Tribunal this cannot be used against him as, in this respect, he ranks with those "who were called to the ranks by the state in such a way that they had no other choice, and who did not commit such crimes."
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until two o'clock, and at that time we will hear any other opening statements.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)